Application of GC

This theme is very strong; it is well pronounced, with visible differences. The power of this theme lies primarily in the visibility within the data and the explanatory power of outcomes in other themes (Composition and Roles), shown as Pattern A in Figure 5. Four specific applications have been identified: Testers/super-users, Facilitators, Pioneers, and Typical. Each application is briefly

presented, and simultaneously the patterns are unraveled before summarizing them separately.

Testers/super-users. This application is already briefly discussed. It concerns typically a change initiated by a system change, which leads to a new way of working and may incorporate a change of culture. This application is applied by Respondent 1 and confirmed by Respondents 4 and 6 (Pattern B). Respondent 1 explains the principle (t.p. 52):

Yes, because actually it is, so suppose we have a system change, then you have a Developer who has made everything. Of course they need people who are going to test it and that is your working group as we call it. That is actually… has the function that: it works in two ways.

(1) For the project team to test; is a product is good enough and does it meet all the requirements we have. (2) On the other hand, those people who ehm…, who test; you can use them right away in your change as a kind of super-users. So that's basically an extension Table 6

Overview of other themes, patterns, their strength, and definition Sub-theme Strength Description

Application of GC +++ How is the GC applied in the Respondents' experience? What were the GC's primary objectives, and what Roles did they fulfill.

Pattern A n.a. Pattern A represents the influence of applications on GCs Composition and Roles fulfilled.

Pattern B n.a. Pattern B confirms the Testers/super-users application by other Respondents.

Attribution to

success ++ How did the GC contribute to the success of the organizational change?

Note. For an overview of the themes, see Figure 5

of your coalition. And they can also help people… to answer questions, to get people involved in a change: to enthuse, to explain things. So it actually has an advantage on both sides.

Respondent 4, who had priorly worked in IT, confirmed the application of a GC in this manner (t.p.

123):

I recognize that very much as with technological changes that you, of course, at some point you have had your technical tests and then you start functional testing. That those people become a kind of power user and are also the ones who guide their own team. And yes, but that is a different kind of change. Often these are not the people who, if we really need a different behavior, they are not always the best people.

Respondent 6 mentions this application and shares a critical note like Respondent 4 from their experience. They compose project-dependent GCs besides the permanent culture and change network for managing system changes, but this is not their particular scope. In the example of a systems change in a procurement organization (t.p. 22):

…you are a country, a procurement organization and they come to you to roll out that system, then you need key users who understand the old system and the new system and who can, for example, train the trainer to explain to his or her colleagues how that system works.

The critique Respondent 6 addresses: “because key users are indeed often used there. My criticism of such programs is often that they do indeed make someone on that team responsible for aftercare”

(t.p. 24). Respondent 6 continues to explain the availability of a team during the change, e.g., led by a large (named) tech consultancy, but they leave soon, and then the GC member as tester/key-user is left alone. Respondent 6, like Respondent 4, mentions a similar dimension in this application (less emphasis on culture or behavioral change). Respondent 6 (t.p. 26):

You will then only be the one key-user who is left behind, who is part of the team and who has to motivate the rest to like this. That is not very easy, so the aftercare is often not given

enough attention, I think. So we try to focus on that too. I think when you talk about our coalition of culture and change agents. They are more concerned with changes where we really want to create a mindset shift and not so much with system implementations.

Respondents 4 and 6 confirm the practice of Testers/super-users application (Pattern B) and share similar concerns. However, these experiences are unique and do not necessarily relate to the context of Respondent 1. Respondent 1 is an in-house CM with prior consultancy experience who is

permanently involved and dedicated. They also have their experts in-house; in this respect, they do not likely have the situation that they are left behind after external experts (consultants) leave.

This Application of the GC is best understood around a system change, where GC members emphasize on testing in the initial phase and providing support in the rollout phase.

Facilitators. From these cases, this is the only case where the members do not voluntarily participate in the GC. They are assigned to participate, whether they like it or not (see Extra-role, para. 5.3.2). The change was forced upon the company by legislators, and in turn, the company managed the required change with force in the organization. The Roles of the GC in this kind of application differ notably from the other Respondents, e.g., in Visioning, the Extra-role, and the Attribution to success. The GC is facilitating the change by supporting pilots and rollout (t.p. 111):

…they then helped us to find the right target group or the right people who could participate in the pilot. But that was very global driven. Yes, so they were more facilitative [emphasis added] about that to help us. And give us some guidance in the in the country, or the entity but not… they have no mandate there, let me put it this way, to make some decisions about that.

A single case is not suitable to conclude whether this application directly relates to

resistance. Still, as a side note, resistance to change is mentioned and explained most extensively in this interview, of which an illustrative quote (t.p. 117):

When we started, we also got a lot of resistance from the coalition. That is less or less now, yes, certainly, and you have to see it too, ehm, because they they, they get the resistance of

the people in the countries, so they also get that whole pile of shit, I always just say before them. So yes, it is not very surprising that we in turn get that pile of shit over us, because they also have to represent their supporters somewhere, but it was in the beginning.. In the beginning it also came away from the coalition and you now notice that that is much less and that it is also much more of a collaboration and that it is actually just the followers, that ehm who offers the resistance…

Notably, resistance also came from the GC members, which differs from the other Respondents’

expressions. This application of the GC is best understood as facilitating; hence the application is called Facilitators. The members are instructed on what to do and support with pilots and rollout.

However, the GC seems less active in shaping the change.

Pioneers. Let us hope this paper does not catch fire while reading this section. This metaphor describes the energy of this Respondent perfectly. Respondent 5's professional motto is “fikkies stoken,” which stands for lighting a fire in Dutch. Their goal is to bring back the energy into organizations (p.18). Respondents' pioneering program is organized “…around people who like to move” (t.p. 4). A brief explanation of pioneering and the emphasis on experimentation (t.p. 18):

I call that pioneering [emphasis added]. The Pioneers who get to work, so that they.. Then I invite them every time, because they share things in the organization or if they do an experiment, that they then do it with people in the organization, so in that way each time enlarge the oil slick and if they have a piece of result, that they invite people who it influences or who they would actually like, who would do something with it.

Respondent 5 has developed their method extensively and uses the metaphor of a building (p. 40). It is pretty extensive and therefore summarized, as it helps to understand the influence on the

discussed themes, marked as Pattern A. Summary from p. 40: the operations are at the ground level, at the basement is where the underlying plan lies (the foundation), at the first floor there is

assurance and translation (procedures, etc.), a translation of what has been thought of at the attic.

The attic has windows, and people are looking at the sky, of everything that would be possible. After

about 100 days spent in this first phase (at the attic), a new pioneering round (at the attic) starts, or the results are given to the first floor. In both situations, the group of Pioneers (the GC) is changed, as argued earlier, due to different skills being required at the various levels (see Constant over time, para. 5.2.3). Nevertheless, also, for another 100-days round at the attic, the group is changed as the energy of this group inspired others as well: “…now I actually want.. I saw that, how cool is that. I want to sink my teeth somewhere for a few months now” (t.p. 46).

This Application of the GC explains why there is so much emphasis on experimentation, why the composition is changed over time, etc. The data shows that the Respondent is most actively involved in the attic phase and emphasizes less on the operations at the ground level. To a small extent, this might also relate to the difference between in-house and consultants (see Discussion, Ch.

6). Energy and creativity are used throughout: “...I think the greatest value is that people know how to find each other better, find back energy in their work” (t.p. 74). This Application of the GC is best understood by reading the metaphor above, particularly the attic. It focuses on experimentation, fostering creativity, and bringing back energy to the company.

Typical. Perhaps the most challenging application to describe, as those applications are meant that do not seem to differ significantly from the selected practitioner models (see Practitioner literature, para. 3.1.2). Therefore, fewer direct quotes are available to support the Typical

application. However, despite the discussed differences compared to the literature on underlying themes, e.g., the Analysis or pre-investigation, this type follows prescription more or less. GCs are involved from the beginning to the implementation; they provide a Signaling function (although not explicitly mentioned by Respondent 2) and provide strong support during unrolling (TEU). Typical is the application one would expect, without doing short the rich and valuable experiences and differences shared by the Respondents.